3 ms·

With a quadcopter drone, a rifle from a helicopter, whatever. These planes are very fragile. You take out the windshield and it doesn't fly. They are much be

With a quadcopter drone, a rifle from a helicopter, whatever. These planes are very fragile. You take out the windshield and it doesn't fly. They are much better protected up at 35,000 feet. The other possibility is depressed trajectory SLBMs. Those could hit most targets in the U.S. in 7 minutes or less. The only problem is that the depressed trajectory means that the reentry vehicle spends more time in the atmosphere, so they're less accurate. With a maneuvering reentry vehicle, you can get better accuracy.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dragontamer 5y ago
You're welcome to test that theory of yours by flying a quadcopter into your nearest air-force base and seeing if you can hit a grounded airplane. Or at a minimum: think about the logistics behind such an attack. Even if you get one military base, there are hundreds of them across the USA, and you're suggesting that someone has the capability to attack all of them simultaneously.
- cameldrv 5y ago
  No. The alert E-6s are normally at Travis AFB and NAS Patuxent River. There are two planes you have to take out. Now, I have seen some evidence that this vulnerability is being more acknowledged and that they're moving around the alerts more. It's not a full roving alert because of course there are a limited number of crews, they have families, and there are not that many bases that have the working alert facilities that Pax River and Travis have. I actually happened to be driving by a random air force base on a road trip recently and happened to see an E-4 taxiing for takeoff, which was interesting to me. They may be using those more to try to increase the alert coverage. I saw some congressional testimony from 2019 about this issue, and the general was asked why they can't move back to continuous airborne alert like they did before '91, and the answer was that the E-6s are old and they don't have very many, and that they would only be able to do this for a couple of months before maintenance requirements precluded them from launching. Sitting on the ground puts less hours on the engines and airframes and so they can maintain that alert.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dragontamer 5y ago

You're welcome to test that theory of yours by flying a quadcopter into your nearest air-force base and seeing if you can hit a grounded airplane. Or at a minimum: think about the logistics behind such an attack. Even if you get one military base, there are hundreds of them across the USA, and you're suggesting that someone has the capability to attack all of them simultaneously.

cameldrv 5y ago
No. The alert E-6s are normally at Travis AFB and NAS Patuxent River. There are two planes you have to take out. Now, I have seen some evidence that this vulnerability is being more acknowledged and that they're moving around the alerts more. It's not a full roving alert because of course there are a limited number of crews, they have families, and there are not that many bases that have the working alert facilities that Pax River and Travis have. I actually happened to be driving by a random air force base on a road trip recently and happened to see an E-4 taxiing for takeoff, which was interesting to me. They may be using those more to try to increase the alert coverage. I saw some congressional testimony from 2019 about this issue, and the general was asked why they can't move back to continuous airborne alert like they did before '91, and the answer was that the E-6s are old and they don't have very many, and that they would only be able to do this for a couple of months before maintenance requirements precluded them from launching. Sitting on the ground puts less hours on the engines and airframes and so they can maintain that alert.